IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurpreet ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of decision: March 06, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 06, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate and Ms. Preetkamal Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail, in case FIR No.154 dated 19.12.2025, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (erstwhile Section 420 Cr. P.C.), at Police Station Cyber Crime, Rewari.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant, namely, Satyavir Singh Yadav stated that he received a WhatsApp message from mobile number 99333-11774 from a person who introduced herself as Anyana Mehta from Motilal Oswal Trading Company. The complainant was persuaded to install an APK file named “MUFSL Max” on his mobile phone and was induced to invest in shares, with the assurance that he would earn substantial profits by investing in the shares as suggested. Thereafter, the complainant received bank account details from mobile number 78921- 88603 for transferring the investment amount. Being influenced by their representations, the complainant transferred `50,000/- on 27.07.2025, `50,000/- on 29.07.2025, `50,000/- on 13.08.2025 and `2,85,250/- on 14.08.2025. All these transactions were reflected and updated in the said APK application, wherein a significant profit was also shown in his Demat account. However, after some time the APK application stopped functioning, and the complainant realized that he had been cheated. In this manner, a total fraud of `4,35,250/- was committed with the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and there is not even an iota of evidence available with the prosecution to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question and/ or not even any allegation has been leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure of co-accused, which is per se not tenable in law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner owns two bank accounts and he has not received any amount in question in the said bank accounts. Learned counsel has further argued that there is an unexplained delay of 04 months in lodging the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, no offence, under Section 318(4)

of the BNS (erstwhile Section 420 IPC), is made out against the petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating is to be recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, in case, he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has argued that, in case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also intimidate/ interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. According to learned State counsel, the complainant has been cheated for a huge amount of Rs.4,35,250/- and, thus, the offence committed by the petitioner and his co-accused is serious in nature. The inves